| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
"Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister, told a public television reporter that he found it 'irresponsible to broadcast this film.''That’s because Dutch companies, Dutch soldiers and Dutch residents could and will be in danger,' Mr. Verhagen said." -- from this Times article
But "Dutch companies, Dutch soldiers and Dutch residents" will always "be in danger" whenever there is an attempt to alert Dutch citizens, by such means as this 15-minute film, of the meaning, and menace, of Islamic Jihad.
The threat will never go away. If the Dutch do not make or see such films, how will they know about Islam, since the government policy is simply to chloroform them, permanently, and never to mention what Islam is all about? How can the citizens of the Netherlands, which had 15,000 Muslims resident in 1970 and now has more than a million, decide to halt, and reverse (and there are a thousand ways to do this) Muslim immigration, to end all the subsidizing and all the coddling of Muslim immigrants, and all the turning of the other cheek to Muslim demands for this or that change in the social arrangements and understandings, in the legal and political institutions, in anything and everything at all, that they, those aggressive Muslims, believe is not to their liking, or contradicts the Shari'a, or constitutes an obstacle to the spread, and dominance, of Islam?
Those who are trying to censor Geert Wilders do not realize, out of fear of "what Muslims may do" to Dutch people, that this implies a permanent policy of preventing anything like Wilders' movie from being made and disseminated. It has no end. And having no end, it means that the Dutch will have been terrified into surrender, even now, when Muslims are about 6% of the population.
And the same will, or can happen, everywhere in Europe -- for Dutch surrender will not sate but whet Muslim demands elsewhere, and the belief of Muslims that their tactics of threatening retribution, anywhere in the world, against the nationals of whatever country that dares to permit something like the truth to be offered about Islam to be made, or once made, to be disseminated.
The Wilders case is no more about Geert Wilders alone than was that of John Peter Zenger in 18th century America, or any of the other celebrated cases, tried both in court and in the court of public opinion. It is no different from the case of Alfred Dreyfus, whom a military kangaroo-court sentenced in a travesty of injustice fueled by antisemitism to Devil's Island, or the case of that teacher, Mr. Scopes, whose discussion of evolution with his students jarred sentiments in Tennessee.
It is about the future of the Netherlands. It is about the future of the West.
This the New Duranty Times does not begin to ponder. But why should it? What responsibility does the Times have, to begin to make its readers understand the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? Why should the Times be expected to give little history lessons on the 1350 years of Muslim conquest? Why should one expect the Times to explain to us the views of Yousef Al-Qaradawi on, for example, the future Muslim conquest of Rome (see the MEMRI excerpt put up at JW yesterday)? Why should one expect the Times to offer real and not fleeting coverage of Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and all the other articulate and very brave apostates who surely stand out, who radiate intelligence and whose views deserve to be heard, at length?
Why should the Times bother to explain the precise legal and other disabilities which non-Muslims -- if they were lucky, if they were "People of the Book" and not Hindus and Buddhists and others -- were forced to endure as "dhimmis," and to relate that to the position of Christians today, in the Arab world -- what about more articles on those Copts? Why should the Times explain how non-Muslims have fared also in the larger Muslim world -- how do Christians fare in Pakistan? In Bangladesh? In Indonesia? In Iraq, now that the iron rule of their sometime protector Saddam Hussein has crumbled, and the Americans never understood what that meant for the Christians, and haven't a clue as to what to do next?
What about, not a merely occasional and fugitive coverage, but articles that in fact bring together reports from different countries, that explains, that makes sense, of how Muslims view non-Muslims?
What about a series of articles on the goals of Jihad -- the Jihad as widely understood by Muslims as the "struggle" to spread Islam, to remove all obstacles to that spread and dominance? Why not articles on demographic conquest by Muslims of Western Europe, as discussed openly by Muslims, at least since Boumedienne felt no hesitation in doing so, in 1974, quite openly at the U.N.?
Why not do this, and so much more? Or is the Times, in its shrinking dotage, incapable of seeing what it has a responsibility to do, and which responsibility is now being met by others, using other forms of communication? In its coverage of Islam, the Times is having circles run around it, not least by this website, and related websites.
Ask yourself, reader, this question: in the more than 2,000 days that have gone by since 9/11/2001, which means more than 2,000 different editions of The Times, during a period when there were about twenty thousand stories, each concerned with Islam, put up at this website (and another ten thousand were not put up, but could be found elsewhere), what have readers of the Times -- the ordinary, trusting reader, the one who "gets his news" from the Times -- learned about Islam? How much further along has that reader been helped out of his ignorance, by the Times?
And the same could be said for them all -- for the paper we call here the Bandar Beacon (the Washington Post), and all the others. They all seem to match, in their credulity and sentimentality about Islam, and confusion therefore about the meaning and menace of the threat and how to handle it, the confusion, credulity and sentimentality of the man and Administration they love to hate: George Bush, and the Bush Administration. They mirror each other, the popular press (and the Times is not very different, not very special) and the politicians who run around, supporting this (for all the wrong reasons) or opposing that (for all the wrong reasons).
One still waits for the army of the well-prepared, in the press, and in politics, to assume their rightful place. It hasn't happened yet.
Posted by Hugh at March 22, 2008 8:19 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
One is reminded of the now legendary words of the former Dutch Prime Minister Hendrikus Colijn:
"Gaat u maar rustig slapen, de regering waakt over u".
(just you go and sleep peacefully, the government is watching over you".)
Colijn's famous words addressing the Dutch nation in a radio speech, were transmitted when Hitler sent his military into the Rhineland on March 11th, 1936, in contravention to international treaties. The Rhineland had been a demilitarized zone, and by sending in the Wehrmacht troops, the Nazis had effectively set the first step leading to World War II.
In the end, in 1940, the Germans invaded Holland.
And Colijns words, uttered in arrogance as he poses in a photo in front of the radio microphone, have become a symbol for Dutch phantasy dreams, oblivious to the reality, not facing up to the future, and self-confident in a neutral Netherlands that will somehow be spared from the developments in the world at large.
Sleep well...
Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 22, 2008 9:37 AM
I think the answer to Hugh's many questions about the NYT is this phrase: Political Correctness.
PC'ness prohibits the saying of certain things, even if they happen to be true.
Posted by: darcy at March 22, 2008 9:43 AM
In particular, PC'ness says you can't slam Islam in any way.
PC'ness also says you *can* blame 1. America, and 2. GWB, for all of the world's evils. All.
Posted by: darcy at March 22, 2008 9:47 AM
QUOTE "...But "Dutch companies, Dutch soldiers and Dutch residents" will always "be in danger" whenever there is an attempt to alert Dutch citizens, by such means as this 15-minute film, of the meaning, and menace, of Islamic Jihad."...
Rather being threatened and therefore heavily armed, than having to live under the tyranny of political correctness and being gradually transformed into fat(w)alistic dhimmi’s, living under the medieval Law of Shari.
The Islamic World considers the Netherlands as a strategic weak spot; an ideological bridge head so to say, from where the Islam apologist, almost undisturbed, can launch their imperialistic, ‘military’, cultural en political jihad all over the rest of Europe.
European leaders, politicians but also the media find themselves tangled up in a 'stifling web of submission. They are blinded by the fata morgana, i.e. by the (optical) delusion of a so called peaceful Islam.
P.s. Since a couple of years now, we host the Ayaan Hirsi Ali-weblog. I would like to invite you to visit our multilingual weblog as well. You can find us at http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/
Hope to see or read more from you,
With kind regards Lucida.
at March 22, 2008 9:49 AM
Excellent Hugh.
All of those pertinent questions could be asked of 99% of the newspapers in the western world.
Could an answer posssibly be that the aim here is to keep the majority of westerners firmly ignorant about Islam?
Could it possibly be that the politicians and the media know exactly what they are doing and realise, clearly, that should most people wake up to truths about Islam, then they will then have to face some serious questions?
I truly believe that Islam is not the main enemy. Marxism is. It is destroying Europe through the EU and it will destroy the US as well. These politicians who are criticising Wilders aren't doing so to protect the senistivities of the perpetually outraged paedophile worshippers.
They are protecting themselves and their destructive ideology. And if they succeed in silencing Wilders, watch how many more hate crimes will be introduced to prevent more and more ideologies and minority groups from being "offended and insulted."
Dangerous times.
Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 22, 2008 9:50 AM
The time is coming.
It may have been long delayed, by well-intentioned but foolish political correctness, or 'sensitivity' to the feelings of those 'moderate' muslims, who must not, at all costs, be offended or alienated.
And how better to offend and alienate them than by criticizing their most sacred beliefs.
As long as we respect those beliefs, for the sake of trying to keep our Muslim 'friends' on our side, so we will continue to maintain the myth of benign Islam. That myth must be smashed before our self-destructive policies can be changed to self-preserving policies.
The work of Spencer and Fitzgerald is critically important, as is that of all those other commentators who are weighing into the balance with their arguments against Islam(ism). But it's a long process. The facts are not obvious; so much is being done to obscure or hide the danger of pursuing our present course. Our default mode is to welcome newcomers to our countries; what could possibly go wrong? After all, perhaps we should be more tolerant, shouldn't we?
No. But not until many more people learn the truth about Islamic Jihad will this thing turn around.
It is a long process, but so long as the arguments presented here and in the books of Mr Spencer and elsewhere are sound and unanswerable - so long as the only responses to those arguments are inarticulate indignation or ad hominem attacks, as is the case, then this movement can only grow stronger.
We may be trying to turn an ocean liner with a paddle, but dammit I think she'll come around.
at March 22, 2008 9:55 AM
Hugo Schmidt-Fischer
No one thinks it will really happen to them.
Posted by: Borg at March 22, 2008 10:18 AM
Read what Kurt Westegaard, the Jyllands-Posten cartoonist from Denmark has to say on Geert Wilders Film and the behavior of the Dutch in comparison to the Danish on free speech
http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article511506.ece/A_totalitarian_power_threatens_us_in_Europe
Posted by: Mackie at March 22, 2008 11:31 AM
Mackie - I did read the interview of Kurt Westegaard, and it's great. I'm going to copy it so I can refer to it later. Thanks for that link.
Posted by: darcy at March 22, 2008 11:46 AM
Westegaard says that the Jyllands-Posten paper received 5,000 Hate Mails during the 2006 Motoon Rage. 5,000 hate-filled Mohammedans! MY God that's a lot of hate. Sure, sure, right, it's the um, oh yeah - religion of peace.
Here's something else from the interview:
"Have you heard the joke about a country in the Middle East that has got a rocket to attack the West. When they come to fire it, it won't leave the ground. There are too many people holding on to it so that they can go to the West." ! LOL
at March 22, 2008 11:53 AM
A totalitarian power threatens us in Europe'
INTERVIEW, By Nanda Troost
gepubliceerd op 10 maart 2008 01:07, bijgewerkt op 10 maart 2008 10:07
ÅRHUS - ‘If you want to satirise, you have to provoke first. Satire doesn't come out of the blue.’ Kurt Westergaard gives an old example. During the Spanish Civil War, Nazi Germany, an ally of Franco, bombed the holy Basque city of Guernica. In 1940 an officer in the Luftwaffe asked the artist Pablo Picasso, 'Was that you, did you do Guernica?' 'No,' says Picasso, 'it was you!'
Kurt Westergaard (72) became a political cartoonist late in life. His parents made him get a real job first. 'They used to say that if I was a teacher, I would have the whole blackboard to draw on every day.' As a teacher and later as a head teacher, he drew illustrations for schoolbooks for handicapped children. 'Learning by doing was the philosophy.'
No, Westergaard has no regrets. He wouldn't do anything differently even though he now knows that there are people who want to kill him, more than two and a half years after the infamous 12 cartoons were published in Jyllands-Posten. He still draws every day. He turns to the opinion pages with his cartoon: KW.
– Did you expect this 'second' cartoon crisis?
Westergaard laughs sarcastically. 'Nobody expected this. After the riots in 2006, the deaths, the 5,000 hate mails and the false bomb alerts the paper received, the cartoons were history. But now, papers that were critical at the time have also printed the cartoons. That meant a lot to me, and to Jyllands-Posten. The papers are standing shoulder to shoulder. Jyllands-Posten is a liberal newspaper. People who don't agree with us call us conservative, nationalist even. But we don't run away from a debate. We have always responded to religious obscurities. That's not always easy for the Christian readers we have. I have received messages of support from all over the world. People offer me their homes, in Germany, Israel, the Faeroe Islands.'
– But there have also been unfavourable responses. You had to leave the hotel you were staying in. Your wife was no longer welcome at the kindergarten where she helped out.
'When that happened I did wonder whether we were still welcome here. But the hotel's decision was taken by someone in Brussels. Some years ago in Amman, Jordan, people died when a wedding party was attacked at one of the chain's hotels. And two overzealous civil servants in Århus thought my wife would put the crèche in danger. They apologised later. There is a lot of support for us here, and there's no objection to the costs. Security is expensive, I realise that. It takes 13 people for me to have one bodyguard. How is it with Ayaan Hirsi Ali by the way?'
– Guernica or a bomb in a turban, does everything really have to be said?
'Yes, that's the way we do it here.'
– Even if you know it's offensive?
'Offensive? That's something they'll just have to learn to live with. Politicians are insulted by cartoons every day. We live in a tolerant country and we can do that. Anyone who lives here must accept democracy the way we do it. In Europe, we didn't give in when the Nazis and fascists threatened us or when the communists were at the door. Another totalitarian force is attacking us now. Not the Muslims as a group, of course, but a handful of radicals. You don't give in to them. I am an atheist but I'm not anti-religion. Muslims as a group must realise that religion is a private matter.'
– Aren't you afraid of polarisation?
'If it hadn't been the cartoons, it would have been something else. It was inevitable. The cartoon crisis was a catalyst in a process of adaptation between Muslims and ethnic Danes. There's friction between two cultures: the democratic Danish culture and the religious Muslim culture. The tension will last for many years to come. But the Danish, the west European culture will win.
'Have you heard the joke about a country in the Middle East that has got a rocket to attack the West. When they come to fire it, it won't leave the ground. There are too many people holding on to it so that they can go to the West. And that's the way it is. Muslims want to live here because we have got such good public services. In that respect, this second crisis is a setback for integration. Danes who are tolerant will become less tolerant. The ordinary Dane will wonder why they have come here and we know the answer: the prospects are much better here.'
– There is a fear in the Netherlands that the riots will be repeated, but this time against the Dutch. The film hasn't been released yet but flags have already been burnt in Afghanistan, Danish flags as well.
'I'm very, very sorry that people suffered. But we – I – can't accept any responsibility for what happened. The riots in 2006 were incited by regimes that can't satisfy the needs of their own people. That's where the problem lies, not with us. I wonder just how religiously aware all those young men were. Most of them hadn't even seen the cartoons.
'Muslims have to stop seeing themselves as victims. We've made mistakes, too, I won't deny that. Politicians, including those on the Left, have failed. But that's changing and most Muslims live a very decent life here. They are accepted and we need them. But they have to understand how democracy works and they have to accept our system.'
– Not every Kurt Westergaard is happy.
The cartoonist bursts out laughing. 'No, apparently there are about 16 people called Kurt Westergaard living near here.' Then seriously, 'It is very bad that other people are also being threatened. I said on television that if they want to threaten anyone they should threaten me. I'm the only real one.'
– And you're not scared?
'No,' he repeats, very definitely. 'No. You have no choice but to be brave and you get used to it. It helps that my wife is so supportive. She has never said I shouldn't have drawn that damned cartoon.
'But what does scare me, really scare me, is the role of the Muslim elite. The spokesman for the largest Muslim organisation says that Jyllands-Posten is in the hands of dark Jewish forces that will close the paper down if we don't criticise Muslims. Or the Afghan foreign minister who comes to thank us for our support and soldiers in Afghanistan but talks about extremists in Denmark being of the same calibre as Osama bin Laden. And he's talking about us! If that's how the elite think, what must the ordinary Muslim be thinking?'
– And that damned cartoon?
No, no, no, I am not sorry. I still draw what and how I want to. But this will never end. I have accepted that I will have to live the rest of my life under the protection of the Danish security service.'
at March 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Islam is a revealed religion and the way it was revealed must be made known, because there lays the key to understanding Islam. The following information can be easily accessed in the West with little effort and research.
When Mohammed was contacted by the spirit (Jibrail) in the cave he was convinced he had been contacted by a harmful (evil) spirit and returned very distressed to his wife Khadijah, who thought otherwise, and to reassure Mohammed, she took him to her cousin Waraqa ibn Naufal, who, allegedly, was "a very old man who knew the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians" and on this old man's OPINION , the spirit who had contacted Mohammed was declared as coming from God and that Mohammed was to become the Prophet of his people! (pages 10 and 11 of the introduction to the English translation of the Holy Quran by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall).
If this old man really knew the Christian Scriptures he would have told Mohammed that he had been contacted by an evil spirit (as Mohammed had correctly thought when the spirit had first appeared to him) on the basis of the biblical teaching found in the New Testament in the letter to the Galatians 1:8 where it is stated ..."if an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached (Jesus' gospel) let him be eternally condemned"...
To be brief... the Koran was revealed by a false spirit (a demon) who appeared as an angel of light (a good angel); in 2nd Corinthians 11:14 the apostle Paul states that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light and that Satan's servants disguise themselves to look like servants of righteousness. The translator Marmaduke Pickthall unwittingly and unknowingly gives testimony to Mohammed's demonic possession in his introduction of the Holy Quran page 11, 3rd paragraph: "the words which came to him (Mohammed) when in a state of trance are held sacred by the Muslims and are never confounded with those which he uttered when no physical change was apparent in him. The former are the Sacred Book (the Koran); the latter the Hadith or Sunnah...” with the above statement Pickthall is confirming that the Koran was recited by Mohammed while in a state of trace or in other words under demonic possession.
Consequently, it should not surprise us that when a person starts believing in the Koran, a demonic product, he turns evil. In the New Testament in the letter to the Ephesians 4:30 ..." God's Holy Spirit... gets rid of all bitterness, passion, anger... hateful feelings of any sort... instead makes you kind and tender hearted... forgiving one another... as God has forgiven you through Christ." This Spirit is not the spirit that leads practicing muslims to pillage, maime, rape, kill and to become suicide bombers.
As Christians in the West we have a great opportunity and obligation to lovingly approach our Muslim neighbours with the Good News of the true Jesus so that their eyes may be opened and step from darkness into light, if we don't, it will be to our own detriment, as Christianity is the only defense against Islam.
at March 22, 2008 12:19 PM
It's hard to "lovingly approach our Muslim neighbors" when we are banned from their lands. It's hard for them to accept the love of Christ when it means they will be killed by their loving Muslim neighbors.
Muslims have heard the message of Christ for over a millenium. Today's Muslims saw the love of Christ displayed in the acts of those who reached out to tsunami victims, most of them Muslims. Those who have given life and limb in Iraq are another example. So are the many Westerners who reach out to Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan after earthquakes, etc. Where were the Muslim rescuers? The message is there. They refuse to see.
at March 22, 2008 12:56 PM
"Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister, told a public television reporter that he found it 'irresponsible to broadcast this film.'
'That’s because Dutch companies, Dutch soldiers and Dutch residents could and will be in danger,' Mr. Verhagen said." -- from this Times article
This is the kind of short-sightedness that will destroy the Netherlands and the rest of the Western world. The danger isn't in showing the film, it's in not showing it.
Thomas Paine asked "is life so dear and peace so sweet, too be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
Paine's generation said "NO!" Too this generation of Western leaders, no price is too high or too dear to pay for a little peace and quiet.
Posted by: rational at March 22, 2008 1:08 PM
The Netherlands should place all its police, troops, and military reserves on alert. Then, it should release Wilder's movie.
The West really must separate itself from islam.
Posted by: HotSpur at March 22, 2008 1:51 PM
Excellent points raised, Hugh!
For the public seeking answers to the questions you raised about the truth of Islamic history, theology, and intentions (or the plight of non-Muslims in countries of the umma)- how about you making JihadWatch or DhimmiWatch that educational resource?
How about creating an index of topics linked to a page of easy to comprehend answers?
It could be your greatest contribution to effecting public attitudinal change - without the controversy of Wilders on the public airwaves.
DemocracyBroadcastingNews.com will buy the first ad on that index page, too!
at March 22, 2008 1:52 PM
"To be brief... the Koran was revealed by a false spirit (a demon) who appeared as an angel of light (a good angel);"
:rollseyes:
Muhammad made it all up. Like all religion, Islam came out of some man's head.
Posted by: non-croyant at March 22, 2008 2:09 PM
In a recent trilogy of interviews about Islam and other religions (translated at lookingfromthebalcony.blogspot.com)Yusuf al-Qaradawi said that any country with a majority Muslim population has the right to Shariah law. Is anyone thinking seriously about what is going to happen in the Netherlands when the increasing Muslim population hits the 51% point?
Posted by: ed at March 22, 2008 2:12 PM
"To be brief... the Koran was revealed by a false spirit (a demon) who appeared as an angel of light (a good angel);"
Scratch my earlier reply and pretend I said this instead:
Was it a demon in the form of the angel Moroni who came to Joseph Smith?
Posted by: non-croyant at March 22, 2008 2:17 PM
I can't wait to see Wilder's movie tomorrow. Anyone know what time it will be avalable?
Posted by: livefree at March 22, 2008 2:31 PM
Maxime Verhagen has been running around in damage limitation mode for the last month, no real Dutch man, and there are still plenty here in Holland, takes him seriously.
The trouble is that what ever they do they cannot appease the Muslims, this they have simple failed to understand.
Things will quickly change in the following months when the world economy takes a nose dive, and it will if you have been following what has been going on on Wall st.
Expect some very pissed off Dutch, who have been made redundant by a world recession, who will not be able to get what they are entitled too, because the pot they have been paying into, has been emptied by a set of Muslim leeches.
at March 22, 2008 3:47 PM
There's definitely a short-term danger in airing "Fitna", but in the long run, an educated voter can help keep the country safe.
Isn't military defense a precedent for short-term danger and long-term security? And the danger here is so much less than if there were shooting. I'd say that "Fitna" is a good investment.
The long-term price of political correctness is very high.
at March 22, 2008 3:49 PM
So the Dutch foreign minister's position is that Dutch citizens and companies could be in danger because Dutch freedom of speech might inflame the Muslim immigrants?
Thus, the danger is due to the (very real) potential of Islamic violence due to Wilders' film (which will presumedly link Islam with --who'd have guessed-- violence)?
And the government wants to silence all its Dutch citizens ("Do NOT under any circumstances mention the elephant in the living room!!!") instead of telling the hostile, racist newcomers that they can adapt or leave?
So, who is acting counter to the interests of the Dutch? Not Geert Wilders.
The entire Dutch government should be tried for treason.
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 22, 2008 4:45 PM
Posted by: Britannia's Lion March 22, 2008 9:50 AM
"I truly believe that Islam is not the main enemy. Marxism is. It is destroying Europe through the EU and it will destroy the US as well. These politicians who are criticising Wilders aren't doing so to protect the sensitivities of the perpetually outraged paedophile worshippers. They are protecting themselves and their destructive ideology."
---------------------------------
In essence you're saying that they're using the "tender religious sensibilities" of the Muslims as a pretext; a means to start depriving us of free speech and all the other civil rights we've developed over the last couple of centuries?
Thus "Totalitarianism Returns": Power-hungry bureaucrats try to persuade us citizens that we must yield more and more of our rights to them in the name of "civility" and "diversity"; it's "for the common good". Once "correct thinking" and "approved speech" (along with much-much higher taxes to fund the Grand Utopian State) have been established, I assume the Islamics and the Marxists will duke it out to see who REALLY gets to run the show...
Boy, that vision of the future could sure cause nightmares.
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 22, 2008 5:19 PM
If we ask honestly what The Times' motives might be for the coverage, or non-coverage, of Islam that they have provided - what would the answer be?
Are they secretly complicit with an ideologically driven supremacist agenda? That's not likely.
Are they afraid of something? Well, genuine public acknowledgement of Islam's tenets and history can get you killed. But major newspapers can't be killed - at least not yet.
They are thinking of two things: 1. most Muslims are not active
in jihadist activity, and, 2. American history is not notable for
tolerance.
They are clearly of a mind to combine these facts in order to get right what the past got wrong. The besetting sin used to be
non-acceptance, so, the needful virtue is simply the opposite -
acceptance.
And since it's obvious that your Muslim bus driver, and your Muslim delivery guy, and your Muslim bank teller, and
the Muslim next door, are not jihadists, the needful virtue is easily adopted, and easily defends itself against "bigots" who
have noticed that Islam itself has a dangerous side, whether all its adherents are motivated by that side all the time or not.
This might be called "thinking with your knee" (i.e. jerking it up)
instead of with your head. And I fear, I am very afraid, that there
is nothing that can be done about it. Information, knowledge, facts, are helpless against it.
Thinking with your knee operates very like the prejudices of the past operated. Reason and information cannot stand up to it.
The pen may be stronger than the sword - but the knee is
stronger than the head. Much stronger, as far as I can see.
Not that I would want Robert and Hugh to give up. I admire their efforts without qualification (even when I disagree with them)
and hope they never lose heart. Lost causes: they're the only ones worth fighting for.
at March 22, 2008 7:39 PM
"And since it's obvious that your Muslim bus driver, and your Muslim delivery guy, and your Muslim bank teller, and the Muslim next door, are not jihadists..."
-- from a poster above
Is it? One way to discover the real thoughts of such a person is to actually have a conversation with him, and to probe. One can mention "suicide bombers" of Hamas, or the demand for the Danes to punish those who published those cartoons, or all kinds of other, seemingly minor things -- whether women are fairly treated in Islam, or whether non-Muslims are fairly treated. The taqiyya and tu-quoque should be apparent quite soon, and if one dares to make any statement that the Muslim interlocutor finds offensive, and one does not back down but sticks to one's guns, the mixture of illogic and ranting, of ill-concealed hysteria, that is likely to be provoked should be instructive. Every Muslim who is a good Muslim will be a "jihadist" in the sense of recognizing his (or her) duty to conduct the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam. There are ways to put Muslims into situations where they are likely to reveal their real beliefs. One may wish to delay or to put off forever that realization, by putting people to the test. I think such a test should be given early on, so you realize that despite the smiles and wiles, and all the supposed friendliness, quite a different and hostile view of Infidels lies underneath.
Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2008 8:10 PM
"And since it's obvious that your Muslim bus driver, and your Muslim delivery guy, and your Muslim bank teller, and the Muslim next door, are not jihadists..."
-- from a poster above
Is it? One way to discover the real thoughts of such a person is to actually have a conversation with him, and to probe. One can mention "suicide bombers" of Hamas, or the demand for the Danes to punish those who published those cartoons, or all kinds of other, seemingly minor things -- whether women are fairly treated in Islam, or whether non-Muslims are fairly treated. The taqiyya and tu-quoque should be apparent quite soon, and if one dares to make any statement that the Muslim interlocutor finds offensive, and one does not back down but sticks to one's guns, the mixture of illogic and ranting, of ill-concealed hysteria, that is likely to be provoked should be instructive. Every Muslim who is a good Muslim will be a "jihadist" in the sense of recognizing his (or her) duty to conduct the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam. There are ways to put Muslims into situations where they are likely to reveal their real beliefs. One may wish to delay or to put off forever that realization, by putting people to the test. I think such a test should be given early on, so you realize that despite the smiles and wiles, and all the supposed friendliness, quite a different and hostile view of Infidels lies underneath.
Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2008 8:11 PM
Irresponsible to broadcast this film because Dutch companies, Dutch soldiers and Dutch residents could and will be in danger?
In the first place, the Dutch population (and all Europe for that matter) ought to be outraged at an ideology and its proponents that makes ministers and cartoonists live in fear for their lives for voicing considered opinion or expression. This fact alone says that there is something pernicious and intolerable about the Islamic population there – and don’t kid yourself, if Wilder were murdered by a Muslim today even the “moderate” Muslims would smile. This cult of death & Shria oppression should not be allowed a foothold on Western soil under cover of “moderate” Muslims. The Dutch Gov. must stop cowering like a scared mouse becaause there's danger while rastic measures are called for.
As Pat Condell says, today’s Europe didn’t earn its freedoms (maybe that’ why they don’t treasure them enough) but was handed them on a plate by people who died for them and its Europe’s responsibility to keep them, forcefully if necessary. So far, to the threatening Muslims it’s been like taking candy from a baby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA
at March 22, 2008 8:47 PM
A_Nonny_Mouse
That's pretty much it. The EU is continually reducing freedoms, cameras are everywhere and seemingly breeding like rabbits. They want us to carry id cards, they want our DNA from birth, they invent crimes every year and tax is now at about 65% for most UK workers. I believe taxation in Sweden is even higher.
Family values have been eroded, the church is on its knees, and the welfare state is being abused left, right and centre. Our politicians are openly corrupt - the EU hasn't had its accounts verified for 11 years - and any attempts to get MPs to reveal their allowances is met with "that's against the data protection act."
They are now creating a multi-state police force (EGF) that can be deployed in any EU state and laws are made and passed by people who have not been elected by the countrymen. Why do you think the EGF is being created?
As Fjordman succinctly writes: "The EU politicians are not there to serve the people, rather, the people are there to serve the politicians."
A great example would be the recent vote by Euro MPs to disregard the EU referendum in Ireland should the Irish vote against the Lisbon Treaty. Just as they disregarded the no votes by the Dutch and the French.
And yet when I say marxism is the biggest threat the west faces people think I am mad.
Posted by: Britannia's Lion at March 23, 2008 7:19 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)